Approximately 24 hours ago I updated my production server with this new version.
One of my clients uses the "damn" version of Outlook 2016, I have correctly configured the .ini for "RECEIVED: MAIL FROM: <>".
I have only detected these errors in the log as strange or different.

Scenario:
1, DKIM signing setup and enabled - Sending an email with email client signs the email correctly (with the usual "dkim-signature:" header).
[b]2, Set up an Account Rule with a "REPLY (email)" as an action (all fields filled correctly).[/b]
BUT the received reply email (sent by the rule) does not get DKIM signed.

Last extra commit (INI setting) is to overrule 'Host name' set in SMTP settings as domain part of the NDR address, which in real world scenarios would be the PTR DNS records of you IP address. This can be usefull in cases where, for example if your PTR is assigned by your ISP and you have no control over it. Or you simply like another domain to be used as NDR address

The only issue I've run across is the autoban score changed from 20 to 100, and when I upgraded I was not informed about it and my other IP Range priorities remained the same. Therefore, autoban took priority over my other ranges and that screwed me up until I figured it out. Easy fix - you just need to be aware.

I've built my copy with the full RMSPF 1.12 - your version is using a subset of RMSPF 1.10 altered by Martin.

RMSPF 1.12 actually have this change already

1.10 has that originally in it as well, but it seems martin removed this deliberately, see pull #323

Full? I hope you are aware hMailServer SPF check only uses 1/2 from the RMSPF lib? (eg: it only check the From address, no SPF HELO checks etc are executed)

What other 'benefits' has using 1.12 over 1.10? Does it change something in this behaviour? I never get a explanation returned, it just displays as "Rejected by SPF ()" but as far as i understand it it should return some explanation or reason between the left parenthesis and right parenthesis

I've built my copy with the full RMSPF 1.12 - your version is using a subset of RMSPF 1.10 altered by Martin.

RMSPF 1.12 actually have this change already

1.10 has that originally in it as well, but it seems martin removed this deliberately, see pull #323

Full? I hope you are aware hMailServer SPF check only uses 1/2 from the RMSPF lib? (eg: it only check the From address, no SPF HELO checks etc are executed)

What other 'benefits' has using 1.12 over 1.10? Does it change something in this behaviour? I never get a explanation returned, it just displays as "Rejected by SPF ()" but as far as i understand it it should return some explanation or reason between the left parenthesis and right parenthesis

Good question... I haven't got the foggiest

If I set SPF check active with a score of 0 ... Does it still check SPF?
I guess I have to enable debug to see...

One thing I was toying with but never managed to get sorted was to print (debug) into Eventlog from RMSPF.cpp. Seems that calling c++ from c is not that easy.

One thing I was toying with but never managed to get sorted was to print (debug) into Eventlog from RMSPF.cpp. Seems that calling c++ from c is not that easy.

I believe, that is exactly what the https://github.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/pull/322 &explain, sExplanation params should return back after the SPF check, but this return value seems broken i never ever seen the sfp check return anything other then Rejected by SPF ()

One thing I was toying with but never managed to get sorted was to print (debug) into Eventlog from RMSPF.cpp. Seems that calling c++ from c is not that easy.

I believe, that is exactly what the https://github.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/pull/322 &explain, sExplanation params should return back after the SPF check, but this return value seems broken i never ever seen the sfp check return anything other then Rejected by SPF ()

One thing I was toying with but never managed to get sorted was to print (debug) into Eventlog from RMSPF.cpp. Seems that calling c++ from c is not that easy.

I believe, that is exactly what the https://github.com/hmailserver/hmailserver/pull/322 &explain, sExplanation params should return back after the SPF check, but this return value seems broken i never ever seen the sfp check return anything other then Rejected by SPF ()